Six Days of Uncreation — A Fifth Reminder

Previous reminders of the self evident are here, and here, and here, and here

We who are conquered, fettered, and abused by the Empire of Lies, from time to time, needs must remind each other of the truths of creation.

Cosmos implies creation, that is, an ordered and fruitful reality.

The worldly man, the agnostic, the Gnostic, and the nihilist, and all the raging rebels against heaven that occupy the seats of the elite, all those modern and postmodern thinkers who tell us thought is vain, all the angry accusers opposed to everything free men know to be sane, normal, and decent, all these creatures of darkness, whether they know it all not, all work toward one end: to make the cosmos to be formless and void.

The accusers yearn to rewrite the Book of Genesis backward, and to undo, day by day, what the six days of creation wrought. The purpose of this essay is to draw out the analogy between the work of creation and the conceit, that is, the narrative pretense, of uncreation.

It is merely a narrative because, despite their envy of heaven, none can uncreate creation. The most they can do is to pretend, and pressure or punish those within their power who will not play along with pretense.

Every public institution, from academia to art to entertainment to media to social media, in tones of furious moral rigor and absolute certainty, promotes the twin dogmas that morality is myth and nothing is certain.

These are not harmless speculations from sophomoric tyros, but the spine and skeleton of a worldview that is fleshed out with propositions equally absurd: that free speech excludes hate speech; or that males menstruate, or that a patriarchy silences women, cops hunt blacks, or Antifas opposes fascism.

The accusers say also that Christianity wars against science, and that all enlightened people must know scientific truths: that unborn humans are not humans; a man can change his sex at will, whereas he cannot change his sexual orientation, and to seek therapy to help him do so should be illegal.

Likewise, the accusers say 97% of scientists agree that manmade greenhouse gas emissions are primarily responsible for undetectable, minuscule changes in average global temperature computer-projected to occur over the next century, and that this will have a catastrophic effect akin to ending human civilization on a planetwide scale within a decade. But erecting nuclear power plants, which have no greenhouse gas emissions whatsoever, is out of the question.

The only solutions for the coming global catastrophe worth discussing are socialism and totalitarianism. (The same people who cannot clean human feces from the streets of San Francisco are somehow going to clean up all the pollution in China by banning plastic straws from Starbucks.)

Likewise, the accusers say allowing men to compete with women in women’s sports and beat them every time is fair, but allowing male sports teams to compete with female sports teams for ticket sales, sponsors, and wages is unfair.

Likewise, the accusers say National Socialist German Worker’s Party is rightwing, the Alt-Right is rightwing and includes Ben Shapiro as a member.

Likewise, they say Trump is a traitor, Obama is a Lightworker, Epstein committed suicide, God is dead.

Since America is founded on racism, and promotes systematic racism, we must welcome any illegal aliens found on our soil without enforcing any immigration laws, especially minorities, so they can work in sweatshops in unsafe conditions below minimum wage. And minimum wage laws do not cause unemployment.

It is cultural appropriation to bring the products of overseas culture to America, but it is cultural imperialism to assimilate new Americans from overseas, because this prevents bringing the products of overseas culture to America.

Since Trump is literally Hitler, we must all turn over our guns to him immediately to make ourselves safe.

And anyone who does not love the remake or reboot or sequel of Ghostbusters or Star Wars or Star Trek or Terminator or Doctor Who or Batwoman, or does not squeal with delight for the new direction for ESPN, Gillette blades, or does not adore female Thor, female Hawkeye, female Hulk and Muslim Ms. Marvel in the all-new-all-SJW Marvel Comics is a racist, sexist, homophobic, Islamophobic, xenophobic, cisgendroheterophobic bigot.

Unless he is black, because blacks cannot be racist, unless he is conservative, in which case blacks are white. Or so the accusers, free-thinking free-thinkers that they are, all say in unison.

Voices raised in opposition this all this nonsense and much more are to be silenced, either by social pressure, or force of law, or lawless violence.

Small wonder they seek to smother any questions raised in opposition: none can actually defend or explain a statement that refutes itself. Merely to utter one dogma from the Cult of Unreason, is to prove it wrong.

Not one nor two, but all of their core statements have this quality.

In this and in the thousand other things they say, the accusers are the voice of chaos. They speak, and reality unravels. Their words are formless and void. Formless, because they contain no logic, and void, because they contain no truth.

They are all saying what no one can help but know is false.

But on the other hand, there are things no one can help but know: namely, that truth is true, reason is reasonable, virtue is virtuous.

From virtue, we know beauty; from reason, we know liberty; from truth, we see that Man bears the likeness of God.

Here, then, we can see the plan of creation, and see each step of the descent into chaos.


The creation of the world first divided light from dark, which is like dividing true from false.

Rarely do academics in the employ of the enemy bother to argue this point. It is simple enough, should any man try to claim that there is no truth, to ask him whether his statement is true. The usual tactic is to pretend the matter is already settled and the debate is over: “your truth” is yours and “my truth” is mine, but since your truth is hate speech, Antifas with smash your camera and a college professor will brain you with a bike lock.


The next day divided heaven from earth, eternal from temporal, which is like dividing the eternal and ideal abstractions of reason from the pragmatic and complex ever-changing ocean of common sense and concrete particulars.

Again, it is impossible to construct a logical argument to show that logic is logic. Instead, an appeal is made to the core absurdity of overweening pride. Every restriction of reality is regarded, in this world, as a fetter for pride to break. The constraints of reason, reality, and common sense are simply ignored by the power of positive play pretend. Man is the measure of all things and hence man is the master of all things. Their motto: God is dead and Man is god.

Ironically, the freedom thus promised is slavery. Each member of the hivemind is expected to regard himself as a fearless individualist. All free-thinking individuals, when thinking freely for each man for himself, all come to the selfsame pre-selected conclusions.


The third day divided the chaos of the unbound ocean from the fertility of the green earth. This is an image of the waves and ebbs of passion that tempt us, producing nothing but tear-flavored saltwater which no one can drink, as against the fruit that comes from cultivating solid morality.

And yet again, it is possible to question whether there is or is not such a thing as objective standards of morality, one cannot examine such question dishonestly while expecting to be honestly persuaded. For the examination to be honest, a standard of honesty is implicitly upheld and adopted. If the examination is not honest, it is not persuasive, hence not an examination at all, merely a pretense.

So if a man tells you that moral standards change with evolution, or with the fashions of the season, or with the expediency of the moment, or do not exist at all, he is appealing to your own dishonest impulses in you, or else he is not saying anything at all.

Does he expect you to be as honest and stern as a judge on a bench in a murder case, weighing each nuance of evidence without fear or favor? If so, he is calling upon the self-same standards, such moral concepts as honor and integrity and intellectual courage, which have no imperative force unless they are objective moral standards.

Nonetheless, a general dismissal of virtue, and a celebration of vice, particularly sexual vice, is the default posture of this generation. The argument is that toleration is an absolute standard, and that toleration requires the rejection of absolute standards. The argument is that it is certainly known to all men that no one has any certain knowledge of what the absolute standards might be or might not be, therefore it is absolutely certain that each man should do whatever is right in his own eyes.

The reasoning is thus: Anything to which one consents is licit. Victimless crimes have no side effects, no ripples spreading out to surrounding society, no negative externalities: whereas even thinking sodomy is immoral is sure to have an indirect side effect encouraging violence in others and therefore such thoughts must be forbidden by thought police.


The first three days of creation divides light from darkness, heavenly from earthly, and solid from chaos. Likewise, the enemy seeks to abolish, first, the difference between true and false by calling everything a narrative, and saying that claims of truth are expressions of power imbalances, hence oppression. Second, reason is abolished. Third, moral standards.

The second three days of creation filled the tabernacle of cosmos with inhabitants: sun and moon and stars made on the fourth day inhabit the realms of light, the birds and fishes of the fifth day multiply in the waves and winds, and the beasts and men of the sixth day inhabit the green earth, and bring the image of God into his creation.

Likewise here, what the chaoticsts seek to unmake are not just true and false, reason and folly, virtue and vice, but also the inhabitants of these realms.

Truth is beauty, and beauty is truth. I doubt this point has to be argued to anyone who grasps its meaning, but I doubt I have the power to explain this point to anyone who does not grasp it. Allow me, then, merely to present it as an axiom, which you may take or leave, as you see fit.

Of the many beauties with which creation is blessed, the difference between male and female, masculine and feminine, inspires the romantic and the erotic passions, which drive the core of human aspiration, civilization, art, and achievement. What a man does not do to please and protect his beloved, to honor his ancestors and provide for his children is hardly worth doing. From the romantic passion of man for wife, from the paternal love of father to child, from the filial piety of child to parent, comes the justification for civilization itself.

A band of young and healthy libertarians, living naked in the woodlands, owning only such property as each man makes for himself, or secures through hunting game, and can tote from camp to camp on his back, taking such wives as can be bartered or abducted from hunting bands as small as his own, perhaps feel no need for civilization.

I have heard anthropologists speculate that such primitive men, caring nothing for who fathers which child, reckon lineages from uncle to nephew, and they call this anarchy ‘matriarchy.’ I am skeptical of such speculations myself, for such a tribe seems to be, if one were ever found, to be a degenerate band falling into a vice their ancestors knew how to avoid – as evidenced by the fact that the current degenerates are here at all, since such a flock of adulterers and cuckoos could hardly pass on their traditions across very man generations.

But however accurate or inaccurate such speculations might be, the first foundation stone of civilization is matrimony, and the first bonds of loyalty to family, clan, and tribe. The heart of family is marriage and the heart of marriage is the difference of men and women, male and female, masculine and feminine. Love conquers all because love is the root of all.

Male and female must be complementary ergo unalike, or otherwise love is merely self love, and eros merely masturbation, unfruitful and unwholesome.

Anyone touched even glancingly by the mental poison of the Empire of Lies immediately, and angrily, and without thought, will ready her rhetorical spear and shield against any implication that male differs from female, on the grounds that all differences are signs of inequality, hence oppression.

The main distinction moderns pretend to unmake is the difference between male and female. Hence Gillette razor ads showing a father teaching his daughter to shave her whiskers. Hence Captain Marvel in the comics books, with her butch haircut and muscular, linear body type. Hence laws in Canada forbidding the correct and truthful use of pronouns. Hence the endless excuses and justifications and news blackouts when it comes to the Muslim treatment of women, the honor killings, the stoning of rape victims, the female genital mutilation, the rape gangs. After all, it is sexist and Islamophobic to say that Islam is right about women. Unless it is not.  Best not to let anyone bring up the topic at all.

While it is not obvious at first, the abolition of truth is directly related to the abolition of femininity. They hate virgins and they hate motherhood, hence most of all they hate the Virgin Mary, Mother of God.

The abolition of other forms of beauty, such as artistic beauty, can be seen by any casual inspection of a modern art museum. This is deliberate policy: men surrounded by an environment of hideous, inhuman, mocking ugliness are easier to break spiritually.

Severing the bonds of love and romance, marriage and family, turns even the noblest soul into a thrall. A whore who has killed her child in her womb, and slutted around with several worthless boys, might possibly retain some shred of honor or self worth, but it is highly unlikely: and any man in her life, husband or father or son, will likely be wounded and poisoned as well, and come to think of fornication as clean, and infanticide as wholesome. Lonely and loveless men are even easier to break spiritually.

According to the conformists, men and women, from Elvis Presley to Marilyn Monroe, must be as sexless as amoeba. The goal is to make any Elvis into Urkel, and Marylin into Ru-Paul. The conformists hate men, and seek ever to unman them; but they hate women more, virgins and mothers more, and children they hate most of all.

Wherever you see the armies of darkness raise their black flags, look for the smoke of children being incinerated in the bellowing idols of Moloch, or, in the case of this generation, the bodies of the unborn being treated as medical waste, or harvested for human organs, denied the dignity of Christian burial.


To abolish femininity and fertility follows from the abolition of truth. The next step in the process, the next day in uncreation, as it were, is when the abolition of reason results in the abolition of right reason, moral rectitude, and the civil rights that flow therefrom.

Civilization from the dawn of time until the rise of Christendom in Europe has been a mighty edifice mortared, like the Tower of Babel, with the shed blood and tears of slaves. Even highly refined eras never contemplated the concept of treating all men, high and low, wise and foolish, rich and poor, free and slave, as brother and sister. Even the most primitive tribe regards kinslaying with horror.

It is a moral advancement to regard strangers and even enemies as brothers and recognize their rights. It is a moral advancement to regard unwanted children as having human dignity, that is, each child has the right not to be exposed to the elements like Oedipus, or thrown into the Apothetae, the bone-pit of unwanted Spartan offspring.

The faculty by which we know this is called reason, or right reason. Absent reasoning powers, we cannot be aware of what standards apply each man at once to himself, his neighbors, and all others. Justice, equality, liberty, are the self-evident deduction from the concept of reason, since reasoning on moral or legal issues inevitably implies reference to a standard.

But all of the reasoning of the conformist freethinkers and secular zealots appeals to a double standard: all rich accused, and all poor excused; all whites accused, and all blacks excused; all men accused, and all women excused; all Capitalists accused, and all Communists excused; all Christians accused, and all Muslims excused.

The standard of the illiberal liberal is to have no standard. A standard would confine him to accusing only those guilty of violating it and would hinder his ability to accuse everyone of the sins and shortcomings he, but not they, possess.

But the idea of having a double standard as one’s standard is an insolent contradiction in terms. Logic will not allow it. Logic hence becomes an obstacle and must be discarded. No logical reason need be given for this. The general rhetorical of multiculturalism and subjectivism, the idea that “my truth” need not be “your truth” and for you to “impose” your reality on me is an act of aggression or cultural imperialism justifying, if not necessitating, tumult, shouting, disruption, violence, and more violence in reply.

That all men are created equal is, in fact, self-evident.

It is the same was saying a rich man’s son, or the son of royalty, is not to be excused for committing the selfsame crime condemned when committed by the son of a poor or common man. When speaking or legal and moral matters, equality means equality before the law, and equality in the conscience. It has never meant anything else.

To claim that men re not equal because nature or chance makes one man the son of a rich man, or one man more wit or strength or comeliness is merely to abuse the word for a deceptive purpose: namely, in order to claim that “true” equality requires the state to be unjust to the rich and fortunate and well favored by plundering them for the benefit of the poor. “Social” justice means injustice to the majority.

This allows the enemy, in the name of equality, to abolish liberty, while, at the same time, in the name of liberty to abolish equality.

By calling anything by its direct opposite, you can do the most devilish things in the name of heaven. Which is the point of abolishing all logic, for this abolishes all meaning to words.

Once chaos has abolished all notion of innate human rights, justice vanishes and law becomes merely an instrument of oppression, that is, law becomes the opposite of justice.

Hence the deadly efficiency of social justice as a weapon in the hand of the enemy. By dividing them, the enemy, in the name of justice, abolishes law; or in the name of law, abolishes justice. Either one is a victory for darkness.

Likewise again, the much gassy talk is spread that individuals have a right to the services and labor provided by others, such as a right to medical care or to food or shelter, merely turns these new socialist rights into the opposite of individual rights. Likewise again for talk of collective reparations for historical evils visited long ago upon generations now dead.

Socialist or collective so called rights are nothing but a false claim of a right to invade the rights of others. This in reality, abolishes the concept of rights altogether.

If a man, even a doctor, has a right to the fruits of his own labor, then it is wrong for anyone, even the state, to invade that right and plunder that labor. To enact tyranny in the name of charity is a blasphemy: it is doing evil in the name of good. It is praising Satan in the name of Christ.


Robbing a man of his rights reduces him to the state of a beast of burden. It is an attempt to blot out his human dignity, which he, by mere virtue of being a son of Adam, shares with all men.

His life is no longer sacred. Life is either a possession, like owning a goat, in which case a man killing himself for any reason or no reason is no more unconscionable than slaughtering the fatted kid for the feast; or life is merely an epiphenomenon of biological mechanisms and chemical processes, merely a meaningless activity of a clump of cells, in which case halting that activity, either in the unborn or in the brain dead, is permitted when and if it is useful, and no other standard applies.

The point of dehumanizing a coma victim or a baby in the womb, calling him not a human, is to pretend killing him is not murder. The point of dehumanizing Jews is to pretend that gassing them is not mass murder. The point of removing the image of God in man is to excuse one of the duty to love one’s neighbor, and treat him as livestock, or as a natural resource to be exploited for one’s own use.

The point of the philosophy called humanism is to dehumanize humanity.

Hence all the silly or sinister attempts to misread Darwin by Hegel or Nietzsche or Marx (or all following them down that broad way paved with good intentions) is to deny that man has any human nature, hence to deny man any fixed nature at all.

If man is infinitely malleable, he can be remolded into any shape whatever, just as any would-be Big Brother or the Grand Lunar might see fit. The idea of Hegelian or Marxist evolution authorizes the most absurd daydreams of social engineers, that they might undo the Fall of Man without the aid of Christ, or redo the sculpting of Adam without the aid of God.

If man is merely a sand dune of unrelated particles heaped together by the winds of blind and random chance, merely a moment on the smooth spectrum leading from ape-man to super-man, no different from other primates except that he has less hair and wears trousers.

Giving animals rights is the same as taking rights away from man, for it puts man on the same moral plane as a beast. If a leper is stamped with the image and likeness of God, well, then, so is your pet cat, Fluffy, whom to you is more dear and sweet: a substitute for a child killed in the womb, perhaps, to make room for a career.

So if a man is a beast, then murder is merely slaughter, that is, killing livestock. And so the egg of a bald eagle is protected by more regulations and public vexation than the life of a dark skinned baby in the womb.

Intellectuals, if they can be called that, among the enemy make a bolder attempt, for even slaughtering livestock triggers vegetarians and other paragons of holier-than-thou syndrome, and sends them running to their safe spaces to pet comfort animals and doodle in coloring books. The would-be intellectuals makes the claim that matter is the sole substance of reality, and only measured quantities of empirical objects open to claims of true and false. Anything that cannot be measured empirically is merely a subjective reaction to stimuli, that is, a meaningless electrochemical reaction in the brain.

Like everything else said by the enemy, it refutes itself in the mere act of being uttered. It is a metaphysical statement stating all metaphysical statements are false. It dismisses as merely electrochemical brain secretions the idea that all ideas are mere electrochemical brain secretions, including this one.

Now, for anyone who has ever attempting a man pretending to be a meat robot to drop the pretense can tell you, debate is impossible while the pretense continues. This is because the topic is not what it seems. The materialist is not answering a sincere question about the substances of which all things, material and spiritual, empirical and rational, are made. He is drawing a rhetorical weapon in order to silence debate on topics his worldview cannot tolerate to confront.

If all things are merely matter in motion, and no statement is true except an empirical statement, then all discussion of any topic of moral imperatives, legal reasoning, abstract logic, and all philosophy is rejected as uncertain or meaningless.

Do any of them actually believe even a word, even a syllable of this blithering jabberwocky? Do any of them actually believe even the jot over the lower case j?

I am not a mindreader, but even a mind reader can only read minds that are occupied. A haunted house is occupied by eerie sounds heard in the night, echoes of screams, and so on. Whether and what occupies the minds of those who say there is no truth, nothing fixed in human nature, no rules of right and wrong, it is a matter more for an exorcist than your humble philosopher to say.

I can say this: these various dogmas, doctrines, and infallible ex cathedra pronouncements of self-contradictory gobbledegook promoted by the skeptical blind faith of the secular religion of the conformist freethinking accusers are never, not one of them, treated as standard applying equally to all. They are never used as anything but a weapon against us, their foes.

Their dogmas are never used except when leveling a false accusation against common sense, civilization, the flag of America, the cross of Christ.

To use one example out of countless, no pro-abortionist asks to touch a new mother’s belly to feel the “fetus” kick. They say “baby” just as sane and normal people do. Only when in the pews or in the pulpit of their secular religion, that is, when promoting or defending infanticide, does any man of them voice the mystery of how a baby is not a baby, a human being is not a human being, by use the special Latin terms of their weird prayers and spells.


One can silence all criticism on the topic of aesthetics, chastity, politics, religion. One is free to have sex before marriage, or outside marriage, or with either sex, or with children, corpses, or animals, freed from the need to heed any adverse counsel urging prudence or moderation. Fortitude, and justice become matters of taste, merely optional as mood and fashion strike, and not solemn imperatives, and politics becomes merely a game of power won by the most ruthless and astute.

As for Christ, he is laughed to scorn. Only the worship of the Beast, whoever the Beast happens to be today, the manifestation of earthly power and splendor, is permitted.

Creation, please note, was spoken into being by speaking of a word. To undo creation, all that is needed is to call things by false names.

The divine acts of creation the enemy seeks to undo is, first, the distinction between true and false, by calling all things a relative matter, or question of opinion.

Second, to undo all reason and right reason, and quell the faculties of logic and conscience, by calling logic a social construct, by pretending logic is arbitrary and uncertain, and then by calling conscience a psychological internalization of social mores, not the voice of heaven in the human heart.

Third, to abolish morality by calling it subjective, either a personal preference, or a set of socially useful behaviors needed for group cohesion or group survival.

Fourth, to abolish the beauty that comes from truth. The complementary distinction between men and women, which is one of the main sources of pleasure, comfort, joy and meaning in life, as well as the sole basis of civilization, is banished by calling sex a social construct, an inequality and an injustice. Beauty in art is banished also.

Fifth, to abolish the liberty that comes from reason, all society is mislabeled as a zero sum Darwinian competition for power between factions, where quarter, cooperation or compromise is neither desirable nor imaginable, hence all talk of liberty is reduced to meaningless gargle. This is done both by using the word “liberty” to refer to everything, so that in effect it means nothing, or by having it refer to nothing. Words like “rights” and “equality” and any other clear concept related to ethics, law, politics, economics, or human decency is likewise gnawed into argle-bargle, replaced by Newspeak, or banished as witchcraft by the accusers.

At each turn, the confused public is told that rights contradict social rights, justice contradicts social justice, equality contradicts liberty, law contradicts freedom contradicts economics, until each horn of the false dilemma merely allows one excuse or the other to abolish constitutional and limited government. Even the terms “rightwing” and “leftwing” are deliberately mired in similar semantic confusion.

Sixth, the image of God in Man is abolished, so that dignity, liberty, beauty, virtue, reason, and truth are all abolished from any question of deep matters. The only question becomes “who, whom?” Who is doing to whom? If the who is friend, he is excused, no matter what he does; and if foe, he is condemned, no matter what he does, even if it be the selfsame thing just excused the in the previous sentence yelled in the previous breath.

We then have creation in reverse: On the sixth day, man is unmade from the image of god, and he is mingled with the beasts of the earth. The line between man and beast is erased.

On the fifth, the injunction to be fruitful and multiply is abolished, babies become merely collections of meaningless cells, liable to be aborted in the name of convenience; and old and senile seniors become obligated in the name of thrift to commit doctor-assisted suicide lest they become a burden to the bureaucracy running socialized medicine. The line between life and death is erased.

Fourth, the sun and moon vanish, Apollo and Diana are no longer god and goddess, and the lord of art and poetry disappears along with the lady of the hunt and the mistress of beasts. Beauty is banished, and all men are girlish, and all girls are failed men.

On the third day, the solid and fertile arbors and gardens where virtue is painfully cultivated, becomes tolerance of vice, and vice become insisting on virtue.

On the second day, the firmament is no longer firm, and heaven drops into the boiling ocean of the ever-changing. Eternal and temporal are confounded, and all things reduced to being subjective and relative to the viewpoint of society, or of an individual — but arbitrary in either case.

On the first day, light and dark are abolished into an endless murk of gray, as all truth fails.

To undo creation is the goal of the enemy. The only means to achieve this goal is through endless false accusations. The only way to erect these accusations is by corrupting and falsifying language. So you, dear reader, should take due care that you know what words mean.

Nor is that all.

Know the enemy. Know thyself. Know Christ. Here alone is victory.